Стефан Драгутин – верска политика и култ
Stephan Dragutin – Religious Policy and Cult
Књига (Објављена верзија)
Метаподаци
Приказ свих података о документуАпстракт
Stephan Dragutin (1276-1282 Serbian king, “king of Srem”
1284-1316), son of king Stephan Uros I (1243-1276) and queen
Helen (died 1314), the older brother of king Stephan Milutin
(1282-1321), is certainly one of the most interesting personalities
of the Serbian Middle Ages. Personality and activity of Stephan
Dragutin are closely related to the lives and work of his father,
brother and mother. Among the most important aspects of Stephan
Dragutin’s activities are his relations with the Roman Catholic and
the Serbian Orthodox Church. What draws particular attention
is the specific way in which Dragutin (i.e. monk Theoktistos/
Theoctistus) is venerated in the Serbian Church. This work provides
a brief overview of the relations of king Dragutin with the Roman
Catholic Church, which are reflected in his correspondence with
the popes (often as a part of the policy of Hungary, with which
Dragutin was inextricably linked), Dragutin’s participation in the
reconstruction of Roman ...Catholic churches and his representations
on Roman Catholic icons. On the other hand, Dragutin worked
on the reconstruction of Serbian Orthodox diocese in areas under
his administration.
The matter of religion in 13th- and 14th-century Serbia raises
many questions. It is clear that the Nemanjics were driven by
political interests, but, when in comes to Helen, Dragutin, and
Milutin’s relations with the Roman Catholic Church, we notice perhaps something more than that. In addition to the union
negotiations, Milutin was also the rebuilder and donor of prominent
Roman Catholic sanctuaries, the Benedictine abbeys of Sts. Sergius
and Bacchus and Saint Virgin Mary of Ratac. The list of witnesses
to the Ratac Charter says that Milutin also cooperated with people
from the Roman Catholic hierarchy, following the paths of his
mother. There appears to have been a degree of cooperation
between the Serbian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church,
especially in the Littoral.
All of this can be explained in light of the negotiations with the
Papacy, but the question remains – whether the Serbian rulers may
have respected, valued and assisted both religions out of personal
feelings, deeming both legitimate representatives of Christian
ecumenism, while safeguarding state religious and political
interests? Even among the high Serbian church hierarchy, there
appear to have been individuals who harboured little hostility and
aversion to Roman Catholicism. Tensions about unionist politics
led to the dismissal of Serbian Archbishop Danilo I, and it is clear
that there was a favorable attitude of the Serbian Church towards
the union in certain circles. We know nothing about the position
of the Serbian Church in the 1308 negotiations, and therefore
we cannot completely rule out the possibility that some church
dignitaries may have agreed with Milutin’s Union policy. All of this
remains unanswered, but it presents questions that can be asked
and directions in which to think.
The negotiations in 1308 certainly began because of the
difficult international situation, which was also reflected in the
Balkans. It was important for the Serbian medieval state to have
an autonomous Autocephalous Church, as Serbia thus gained a
higher place on the hierarchical ladder of European states and
Churches and increased its international reputation. Negotiations
with the Papacy and its demands threatened these political-religious interests, as the Serbian Church would have to accept the authority
and command of Rome and lose its hard-won rights during the
13th century. Serbia and its Church were being asked for too much,
not just unity but also subordination. In our view, Milutin rejected
the papal proposals in order to preserve important Serbian church
and political heritage and to pull Serbia out of disadvantage. The
open hostility of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the 13th
century, in our view, did not exist in the Serbian state. It was a
diplomatic game about jurisdiction and primacy, which did not
concern religion nor manifested only in the relations of the two
Churches, and involved both the Serbian rulers and ecclesiastical
dignitaries of the Roman Catholic West.
The co-operation of the Serbian state with the Roman Catholic
Church was needed in order to maintain good relations with
the Papacy and the West and to enable the Roman Catholic and
Orthodox population to live together in the Serbian state, especially
in Zeta. Also, Roman Catholics of the Littoral and inland Serbian
countries (Saxon miners, merchants from Dubrovnik and other
coastal and even Italian cities) had a great importance for the
development of crafts, mining, trade and the economic boom of
Serbia. It was in the interest of the state’s economic uplift to provide
them with good treatment, conditions and privileges, above all
the confession of faith and the establishment of Roman Catholic
parishes. Evidence of this cooperation is the participation of Queen
Helen and kings Dragutin and Milutin in the restoration of Roman
Catholic sanctuaries. Furthermore, one ought to recall Helen and
Milutin’s charter to the Roman Catholic monastery of St. Virgin
Mary of Ratac, whose witnesses are representatives of the high
Roman Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies, or indeed the charter
issued to the noble family of Zaretic, whose representative Marin
was the archbishop of Bar, an envoy and a close associate of the
Serbian ruling family. From the foregoing, it is clear that there are currently two
positions taken by scholars about the essence of the cult of Stefan
Dragutin, backed up by sources. The first position developed from
an earlier time, from the work of Leontije Pavlovic and Radmila
Marinkovic, and is elaborated and accepted by Danica Popovic. This
position is based on the view that the development of the cult of
King Dragutin was systematically prevented in order to secure the
legacy of a generous lineage to Milutin’s branch of the family. More
recently, Smilja Marjanovic-Dusanic has been equally convincing
about the program of the ascetic ruler cult intended for Dragutin,
and the ban on raising the burial remains is thus considered a
radical ascetic act. The question in historiography remains open,
and the beauty, richness and progress of historiography is reflected
in the variety of interpretations.
Кључне речи:
Istorija Srpske Crkve / Srpska Srednjovekovna Istorija / Medieval Church History / Serbian Medieval HistoryИзвор:
2020Издавач:
- Институт за српску културу Приштина / Лепосавић
Институција/група
Istorija / HistoryTY - BOOK AU - Поповић, Мирослав М. PY - 2020 UR - http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/4544 AB - Stephan Dragutin (1276-1282 Serbian king, “king of Srem” 1284-1316), son of king Stephan Uros I (1243-1276) and queen Helen (died 1314), the older brother of king Stephan Milutin (1282-1321), is certainly one of the most interesting personalities of the Serbian Middle Ages. Personality and activity of Stephan Dragutin are closely related to the lives and work of his father, brother and mother. Among the most important aspects of Stephan Dragutin’s activities are his relations with the Roman Catholic and the Serbian Orthodox Church. What draws particular attention is the specific way in which Dragutin (i.e. monk Theoktistos/ Theoctistus) is venerated in the Serbian Church. This work provides a brief overview of the relations of king Dragutin with the Roman Catholic Church, which are reflected in his correspondence with the popes (often as a part of the policy of Hungary, with which Dragutin was inextricably linked), Dragutin’s participation in the reconstruction of Roman Catholic churches and his representations on Roman Catholic icons. On the other hand, Dragutin worked on the reconstruction of Serbian Orthodox diocese in areas under his administration. The matter of religion in 13th- and 14th-century Serbia raises many questions. It is clear that the Nemanjics were driven by political interests, but, when in comes to Helen, Dragutin, and Milutin’s relations with the Roman Catholic Church, we notice perhaps something more than that. In addition to the union negotiations, Milutin was also the rebuilder and donor of prominent Roman Catholic sanctuaries, the Benedictine abbeys of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and Saint Virgin Mary of Ratac. The list of witnesses to the Ratac Charter says that Milutin also cooperated with people from the Roman Catholic hierarchy, following the paths of his mother. There appears to have been a degree of cooperation between the Serbian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, especially in the Littoral. All of this can be explained in light of the negotiations with the Papacy, but the question remains – whether the Serbian rulers may have respected, valued and assisted both religions out of personal feelings, deeming both legitimate representatives of Christian ecumenism, while safeguarding state religious and political interests? Even among the high Serbian church hierarchy, there appear to have been individuals who harboured little hostility and aversion to Roman Catholicism. Tensions about unionist politics led to the dismissal of Serbian Archbishop Danilo I, and it is clear that there was a favorable attitude of the Serbian Church towards the union in certain circles. We know nothing about the position of the Serbian Church in the 1308 negotiations, and therefore we cannot completely rule out the possibility that some church dignitaries may have agreed with Milutin’s Union policy. All of this remains unanswered, but it presents questions that can be asked and directions in which to think. The negotiations in 1308 certainly began because of the difficult international situation, which was also reflected in the Balkans. It was important for the Serbian medieval state to have an autonomous Autocephalous Church, as Serbia thus gained a higher place on the hierarchical ladder of European states and Churches and increased its international reputation. Negotiations with the Papacy and its demands threatened these political-religious interests, as the Serbian Church would have to accept the authority and command of Rome and lose its hard-won rights during the 13th century. Serbia and its Church were being asked for too much, not just unity but also subordination. In our view, Milutin rejected the papal proposals in order to preserve important Serbian church and political heritage and to pull Serbia out of disadvantage. The open hostility of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the 13th century, in our view, did not exist in the Serbian state. It was a diplomatic game about jurisdiction and primacy, which did not concern religion nor manifested only in the relations of the two Churches, and involved both the Serbian rulers and ecclesiastical dignitaries of the Roman Catholic West. The co-operation of the Serbian state with the Roman Catholic Church was needed in order to maintain good relations with the Papacy and the West and to enable the Roman Catholic and Orthodox population to live together in the Serbian state, especially in Zeta. Also, Roman Catholics of the Littoral and inland Serbian countries (Saxon miners, merchants from Dubrovnik and other coastal and even Italian cities) had a great importance for the development of crafts, mining, trade and the economic boom of Serbia. It was in the interest of the state’s economic uplift to provide them with good treatment, conditions and privileges, above all the confession of faith and the establishment of Roman Catholic parishes. Evidence of this cooperation is the participation of Queen Helen and kings Dragutin and Milutin in the restoration of Roman Catholic sanctuaries. Furthermore, one ought to recall Helen and Milutin’s charter to the Roman Catholic monastery of St. Virgin Mary of Ratac, whose witnesses are representatives of the high Roman Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies, or indeed the charter issued to the noble family of Zaretic, whose representative Marin was the archbishop of Bar, an envoy and a close associate of the Serbian ruling family. From the foregoing, it is clear that there are currently two positions taken by scholars about the essence of the cult of Stefan Dragutin, backed up by sources. The first position developed from an earlier time, from the work of Leontije Pavlovic and Radmila Marinkovic, and is elaborated and accepted by Danica Popovic. This position is based on the view that the development of the cult of King Dragutin was systematically prevented in order to secure the legacy of a generous lineage to Milutin’s branch of the family. More recently, Smilja Marjanovic-Dusanic has been equally convincing about the program of the ascetic ruler cult intended for Dragutin, and the ban on raising the burial remains is thus considered a radical ascetic act. The question in historiography remains open, and the beauty, richness and progress of historiography is reflected in the variety of interpretations. PB - Институт за српску културу Приштина / Лепосавић T1 - Стефан Драгутин – верска политика и култ T1 - Stephan Dragutin – Religious Policy and Cult UR - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_4544 ER -
@book{ author = "Поповић, Мирослав М.", year = "2020", abstract = "Stephan Dragutin (1276-1282 Serbian king, “king of Srem” 1284-1316), son of king Stephan Uros I (1243-1276) and queen Helen (died 1314), the older brother of king Stephan Milutin (1282-1321), is certainly one of the most interesting personalities of the Serbian Middle Ages. Personality and activity of Stephan Dragutin are closely related to the lives and work of his father, brother and mother. Among the most important aspects of Stephan Dragutin’s activities are his relations with the Roman Catholic and the Serbian Orthodox Church. What draws particular attention is the specific way in which Dragutin (i.e. monk Theoktistos/ Theoctistus) is venerated in the Serbian Church. This work provides a brief overview of the relations of king Dragutin with the Roman Catholic Church, which are reflected in his correspondence with the popes (often as a part of the policy of Hungary, with which Dragutin was inextricably linked), Dragutin’s participation in the reconstruction of Roman Catholic churches and his representations on Roman Catholic icons. On the other hand, Dragutin worked on the reconstruction of Serbian Orthodox diocese in areas under his administration. The matter of religion in 13th- and 14th-century Serbia raises many questions. It is clear that the Nemanjics were driven by political interests, but, when in comes to Helen, Dragutin, and Milutin’s relations with the Roman Catholic Church, we notice perhaps something more than that. In addition to the union negotiations, Milutin was also the rebuilder and donor of prominent Roman Catholic sanctuaries, the Benedictine abbeys of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and Saint Virgin Mary of Ratac. The list of witnesses to the Ratac Charter says that Milutin also cooperated with people from the Roman Catholic hierarchy, following the paths of his mother. There appears to have been a degree of cooperation between the Serbian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, especially in the Littoral. All of this can be explained in light of the negotiations with the Papacy, but the question remains – whether the Serbian rulers may have respected, valued and assisted both religions out of personal feelings, deeming both legitimate representatives of Christian ecumenism, while safeguarding state religious and political interests? Even among the high Serbian church hierarchy, there appear to have been individuals who harboured little hostility and aversion to Roman Catholicism. Tensions about unionist politics led to the dismissal of Serbian Archbishop Danilo I, and it is clear that there was a favorable attitude of the Serbian Church towards the union in certain circles. We know nothing about the position of the Serbian Church in the 1308 negotiations, and therefore we cannot completely rule out the possibility that some church dignitaries may have agreed with Milutin’s Union policy. All of this remains unanswered, but it presents questions that can be asked and directions in which to think. The negotiations in 1308 certainly began because of the difficult international situation, which was also reflected in the Balkans. It was important for the Serbian medieval state to have an autonomous Autocephalous Church, as Serbia thus gained a higher place on the hierarchical ladder of European states and Churches and increased its international reputation. Negotiations with the Papacy and its demands threatened these political-religious interests, as the Serbian Church would have to accept the authority and command of Rome and lose its hard-won rights during the 13th century. Serbia and its Church were being asked for too much, not just unity but also subordination. In our view, Milutin rejected the papal proposals in order to preserve important Serbian church and political heritage and to pull Serbia out of disadvantage. The open hostility of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the 13th century, in our view, did not exist in the Serbian state. It was a diplomatic game about jurisdiction and primacy, which did not concern religion nor manifested only in the relations of the two Churches, and involved both the Serbian rulers and ecclesiastical dignitaries of the Roman Catholic West. The co-operation of the Serbian state with the Roman Catholic Church was needed in order to maintain good relations with the Papacy and the West and to enable the Roman Catholic and Orthodox population to live together in the Serbian state, especially in Zeta. Also, Roman Catholics of the Littoral and inland Serbian countries (Saxon miners, merchants from Dubrovnik and other coastal and even Italian cities) had a great importance for the development of crafts, mining, trade and the economic boom of Serbia. It was in the interest of the state’s economic uplift to provide them with good treatment, conditions and privileges, above all the confession of faith and the establishment of Roman Catholic parishes. Evidence of this cooperation is the participation of Queen Helen and kings Dragutin and Milutin in the restoration of Roman Catholic sanctuaries. Furthermore, one ought to recall Helen and Milutin’s charter to the Roman Catholic monastery of St. Virgin Mary of Ratac, whose witnesses are representatives of the high Roman Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies, or indeed the charter issued to the noble family of Zaretic, whose representative Marin was the archbishop of Bar, an envoy and a close associate of the Serbian ruling family. From the foregoing, it is clear that there are currently two positions taken by scholars about the essence of the cult of Stefan Dragutin, backed up by sources. The first position developed from an earlier time, from the work of Leontije Pavlovic and Radmila Marinkovic, and is elaborated and accepted by Danica Popovic. This position is based on the view that the development of the cult of King Dragutin was systematically prevented in order to secure the legacy of a generous lineage to Milutin’s branch of the family. More recently, Smilja Marjanovic-Dusanic has been equally convincing about the program of the ascetic ruler cult intended for Dragutin, and the ban on raising the burial remains is thus considered a radical ascetic act. The question in historiography remains open, and the beauty, richness and progress of historiography is reflected in the variety of interpretations.", publisher = "Институт за српску културу Приштина / Лепосавић", title = "Стефан Драгутин – верска политика и култ, Stephan Dragutin – Religious Policy and Cult", url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_4544" }
Поповић, М. М.. (2020). Стефан Драгутин – верска политика и култ. Институт за српску културу Приштина / Лепосавић.. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_4544
Поповић ММ. Стефан Драгутин – верска политика и култ. 2020;. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_4544 .
Поповић, Мирослав М., "Стефан Драгутин – верска политика и култ" (2020), https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_reff_4544 .